Portal talk:The Yale Shakespeare

Series style

Until a written style guide is prepared, use Index:Richard II (1921) Yale.djvu as a reference. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Could we replace the cf. n in the tooltip with the actual text from the note after validation? It would be far more useful as a pop-up than note: see note. Languageseeker (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

That would be an alteration to the published text. Since the text has "cf.n." as the footnote on a page, we reproduce that footnote. Doing otherwise would move content from one section of the work to a section where it did not originally appear. This would mean that people citing our copy of the text would not be able to reference the page on which that information appears in the published volume. Wikisource does not alter texts in this way. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to alter the text, but I do think that it would be useful to combine the two. How about something like this:

No more the thirsty entrance of this soil

This preserves the original note and gives the page number for the full note as well. Languageseeker (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

But it doesn't; you have to add clarifying text not in the original to indicate the page where the note is located. And italics, bold, or other formatting is lost. Also, the "note" is sometimes a set of paragraphs or full page of text, and this will not work well for visually impaired readers or readers using a tablet or mobile device. See the note on I. i. from Richard II, for example. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, the proposal is not to eliminate the Notes section by moving its contents to the tooltips. I think that the notes section is an integral part of the original work and must remain. Rather, I want to duplicate the contents of the notes section in the tooltip for convenience sake. Whenever, I deal with text that have extensive notes in the back, I always find it distracting and difficult to flip between the two. In ebooks, it's even worse. As far as I can tell, the amount of text in a tooltip does not matter. If a person in reading the text online or on an ebook, they can see the note in a pop-up window without having to be taken out of the text. I've taken your example and put it in a tooltip and it works great. Languageseeker (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

K. Rich. Old John of Gaunt, time-honour'd Lancaster,

Hast thou, according to thy oath and band,

Brought hither Henry Hereford thy bold son,

Here to make good the boisterous late appeal, 4

I just tested the tooltips in the generated epub in Calibre and on my Kobo with the following results. In Calibre, the short tooltip works, but the long one is cut off with no ability to scroll. On my Kobo, tooltips do not work. Then, I tried the generated PDF in Acrobat and the tooltips are lost. It seems that tooltips may not be the best way to go if we want compatibility with ebook readers. Instead, we should these tooltips should be made into footnotes. Languageseeker (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Succinctly: endnotes kinda suck, but that's how these works were published so that's how we need to reproduce them. --Xover (talk) 07:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Except, they are not endnotes or footnotes. To be pedantic, they are line references. We already decided to replace these line references with tooltips because they make more sense for digital. Once again, I'm not asking to get rid of the endnotes. I want to duplicate the information in the tooltip. Endnotes are terrible enough on paper, but they are even worse in digital. We can duplicate the information in the tooltip without having to lose the Notes section. Make life easier for those reading the book while, simultaneously, preserving the original layout. Languageseeker (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

No, we did not replace them. They still appear at the bottom of the "page" with page numbers in the margin. The tooltip is included so that the reader does not have to scroll all the way to the bottom and then back up every time one of these appears. This is the result of including an entire Act on a single virtual page instead of separating each page of source text to a separate internet page. The information that appears together on a single page in the original text still appears together on a single page in the Wikisource edition. As you have already observed, including the entire Notes from the back of the volume as a tooltip does not work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Neither the long or the short ones work on Kobo. It's an issue where Kobo does not support the tooltip property. Regardless of what we decide to do with the cf n., it probably makes sense to convert the tooltip into actual footnotes if we wish for them to work on an ebook reader. Languageseeker (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, because you can't click in the tooltip, you have to scroll to the bottom to be able to click on the link to the endnote. What would you think about adding a endnote next to the tooltip that would go the note section? Like this.

And, my heart disdained that my tongue^{Cf. n.}

I really appreciate all the thoughtful feedback.

Languageseeker (talk) 04:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Languageseeker (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

There are other editions that place such footnote numbers in the text. For those editions, that might be reasonable. One of the reasons the Yale series is popular is that there is no extraneous text or footnote numbers visible in the body of the text to distract the reader. Inserting such footnote markers would negate that advantage of the edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Now, I get it. The Yale Edition is designed for a smooth reading that does not pull you out of the text. It's a sort of anti-Arden. So long tooltips and endnotes would go against the original intention. Got it. Thanks for being so patient. Languageseeker (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)